Question for the advocates of "tough medicine"

[Fear_Itself]

@WillFarnaby

You compare a subsidy, which is money extorted from many people and given to a few, with a tax deduction, which allows someone to keep money they earned in the first place.

You are not entitled to keep every dollar you earn, and also enjoy all the liberty living in America guarantees you.

[panaccione]

If paying higher taxes meant access to Education, Healthcare, and a strong social safety net, I would have no problem paying higher taxes. This is coming from someone barely getting by.

[scabpicker]

@WillFarnaby

You compare a subsidy, which is money extorted from many people and given to a few, with a tax deduction, which allows someone to keep money they earned in the first place.

The answer to your question is simple. Some people are hypocrites and some are not.

(bolding mine)

Inigo Montoya would probably want a word with you about grammar.

[WillFarnaby]

@Fear_Itself

You are not entitled to keep every dollar you earn, and also enjoy all the liberty living in America guarantees you.

The American government would be perfectly capable of “guaranteeing” liberty without an income tax. In fact, the higher the income tax, the more likely it is that the government will encroach on the liberty you claim it guarantees.

@scabpicker

(bolding mine)

Inigo Montoya would probably want a word with you about grammar.

Why?

[scabpicker]

@WillFarnaby

Why?

From the wiki article on the term:

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

Taxes aren’t illegal, so it’s not extortion. If you’d used taxed, instead of extorted, you wouldn’t look half as foolish when making that argument.

[WillFarnaby]

@scabpicker

From the wiki article on the term:

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

Taxes aren’t illegal, so it’s not extortion. If you’d used taxed, instead of extorted, you wouldn’t look half as foolish when making that argument.

Since we’re breaking the ol’ dictionaries out let’s look at:

Merriam-Webster: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.

OED: . To obtain from a reluctant person by violence, torture, intimidation, or abuse of legal or official authority, or (in weaker sense) by importunity, overwhelming arguments, or any powerful influence.

Taxes aren’t illegal, but they are collected by intimidation and threat of violence, so it is extortion. If you would have looked it up you wouldn’t look half as foolish when trying to make me look foolish.

[septimus]

@WillFarnaby

OED: . To obtain from a reluctant person by violence, torture, intimidation, or abuse of legal or official authority, or (in weaker sense) by importunity, overwhelming arguments, or any powerful influence.

Taxes aren’t illegal, but they are collected by intimidation and threat of violence, so it is extortion. If you would have looked it up you wouldn’t look half as foolish when trying to make me look foolish.

From your definition, it appears the reluctance to pay taxes is an important part of the idea that they’re extortion. A friend had his electricity cut off when he didn’t pay his bill; was he being extorted? He wasn’t “tortured” but then neither are IRS auditees.

@WillFarnaby

You compare a subsidy, which is money extorted from many people and given to a few, with a tax deduction, which allows someone to keep money they earned in the first place.

The answer to your question is simple. Some people are hypocrites and some are not.

I address this comment in another thread.

[Fear_Itself]

@WillFarnaby

The American government would be perfectly capable of “guaranteeing” liberty without an income tax. In fact, the higher the income tax, the more likely it is that the government will encroach on the liberty you claim it guarantees.

Perhaps, but that would be contrary to the intent of the Founders.

[scabpicker]

@WillFarnaby

Since we’re breaking the ol’ dictionaries out let’s look at:

Merriam-Webster: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.

OED: . To obtain from a reluctant person by violence, torture, intimidation, or abuse of legal or official authority, or (in weaker sense) by importunity, overwhelming arguments, or any powerful influence.

Taxes aren’t illegal, but they are collected by intimidation and threat of violence, so it is extortion. If you would have looked it up you wouldn’t look half as foolish when trying to make me look foolish.

Well, if we’re gonna break them out, let’s read. The words “undue” in the first definition and “abuse of legal authority” make both definitions appear to still not apply. It appears from your response that you think undue or abuse means anything you don’t like. It doesn’t.

[steronz]

@desertmonk

Everybody has an excuse. At this point I am only interested in people telling me what sacrifices they personally are willing to make things better, not what they think somebody else should have to do.

I support removing the mortgage interest deduction even though I benefit greatly from it. I’d be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for universal health care. I think we should cut the military budget even though I’m both in the military (as a reservist) and work for the military (as a contractor).

So, how many of us need to pipe up before you believe we exist?

[desertmonk]

@steronz

I support removing the mortgage interest deduction even though I benefit greatly from it. I’d be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for universal health care. I think we should cut the military budget even though I’m both in the military (as a reservist) and work for the military (as a contractor).

So, how many of us need to pipe up before you believe we exist?

Enough to break the deadlock.